After America gained independence from Great Britain in 1776, it needed something to bring the colonies together into one entity. They needed the feeling of a unified government. For this reason, the Articles of Confederation were written, which constituted the first constitution of the United States. Even though it was essentially the country's first constitution, it was not a good constitution at all. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The Articles of Confederation had many problems. The amendments were nearly impossible because all thirteen states had to reach an agreement to carry them through. In the case of small bills, things weren't as difficult as an amendment, but they weren't nearly as easy. For small legislation to pass, nine out of thirteen states had to agree. The government can't force you to do anything, it can only ask you to do it. The so-called government had no power to tax or conscript the people. Because they had no right to tax or leverage, there was no money to repay the US national debt, and because of this they were stuck in a state of national debt. There was no executive branch so there was no one to enforce the law, so the entire country lived in a constant state of chaos. No one had absolutely any control over the states. If a conflict were to break out, it would certainly be a large and armed conflict. And this is exactly what happened. Daniel Shay was a Revolutionary War veteran. The United States did not have the money to pay all these veterans, so they gave them war bonds and promised that they would receive their money when they took their bonds to the bank. The longer you hold your bond, the more interest you will earn and the more money you will get. But this did not happen. The bank rejected Shay's bail along with everyone else's, which was a major turning point. Many men were farmers and these farmers had no money to pay off their farm debts, so the bank began to take back their farms. These men tried to explain that if the bank would accept their bonds, then they could afford to pay off their debts, but the bank still refused. These men rallied together in an armed protest that lasted about six months in an attempt to stop the court from sending innocent men to prison for their debts. Shay's Rebellion showed many problems with the government and how weak the Articles of Confederation were and is thought to be the main reason why the new constitution was written and for the fall of the Articles. Shay's Rebellion, however, could not take full credit for the failure of the Articles of Confederation. Poor international relations and the rural-urban divide also played a major role in the downfall of the Articles. After the new Constitution was written, James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton wrote the Federalist documents. Federalists could be considered nationalists. The Federalists wanted a strong central government with very weak state governments. Benjamin Franklin, John Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and George Washington were key Federalists. These men may have been key or leading Federalists, but they had many supporters at their side. The support the Federalists received was largely in urban areas. Federalists favored the Constitution and believed that it was, in fact, sufficient to protect the individual rights of the peopleAmerican. The Anti-Federalists could not have disagreed more. John Hancock, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, George Mason, and Mercy Otis Warren were the leading Anti-Federalists who gained their support largely through very rural areas made up mostly of farmers. These Anti-Federalists wanted the state government to be in power and not the central government. The Anti-Federalist Party believed that the Constitution was in no way sufficient and favored the Articles of Confederation. Since the Anti-Federalists couldn't organize a party in all 13 states, they simply had to try to fight ratification at every state meeting. Alexander Hamilton, better known as Publius in Federalist newspapers, is the author of both Federalist Documents numbers 78 and 79. Early in the document, Hamilton addresses the importance of judicial power. According to his beliefs, the judiciary is the weakest branch of the whole government, because he believed that the judiciary is not involved in things that concern the responsibilities of the government and that it only has the power to judge. They have no power over money or the army. Hamilton told people that no matter how unfairly the court may treat you, it can never infringe or threaten your freedom. The Constitution provides that judges hold office for life during good conduct. The only way a judge can be removed is if he commits a serious crime. Hamilton states that learning and perfecting being a judge takes a lifetime to master, so there is no reason why a judge should not serve his or her lifetime term. Hamilton basically laughs at anyone who thinks the idea of ​​judges holding their positions for life is a bad idea. Judges serving for life free them from political pressure or swinging one way or the other. Even though the judges serving life sentences were good, the judicial branch was still the weakest. Judicial review is still part of the Constitution, however it is too contrary to democracy. According to Hamilton, all responsibility should be left to the elite and no one else. While we don't know who exactly wrote Anti-Federalist documents number 78 and 79, we do know that he is referred to as Brutus in these documents. Brutus states that the Supreme Court will have a higher rank than anyone else in the government system. As a result, there will be no power over judges and no one will be able to control their decisions, leading judges to have too much say and control the legislature. Brutus said, "I do not object to judges holding their commissions during good conduct." But, while he thought judges serving life sentences were responsible, he disagreed that judges should be so independent and that it was too similar to the English government. Everyone needs a leader or someone to help them stay on the right path, and he thought that because these judges had no power over them, they were too independent. According to Brutus, any responsibility should be in the hands of the people and have nothing to do with the judiciary. Judicial review is a key aspect in both of these documents and both Hamilton and Brutus agree that the judiciary should be independent, but nothing else was agreed between the two. Among newspapers, the power of judges to declare a law unconstitutional has sparked a vast debate. Hamilton argued that the judiciary “may truly be said to have neither STRENGTH nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must, ultimately, depend on the help of the executive arm also for the effectiveness of its judgments”. Hamilton has.